The Presumption of Innocence: LHO

[James DiEugenio]

As we know, Oswald never had a lawyer.  According to the DPD there was no stenographic record of his questioning.  

He never got a grand jury hearing, or a preliminary hearing.  But yet on the day after he was murdered in the middle of about 50 Dallas cops live on TV, he was named by the NY Times as JFK's assassin.  Not alleged assassin, but assassin.

The Warren Commission was made up of lawyers.  But yet every tenet of judicial process was eliminated from their proceedings.  No objections were allowed, and no documents were examined, since there was no counsel for Oswald. There was no judge to oversee things since LBJ had neutered Warren as had Dulles, when he objected violently to Warren Olney as Warren's choice for chief counsel. So the kind of circus sideshow Johnny Cairns is going to describe was allowed to run rampant. I don't think anyone has done a better job on the shells, which have been relatively ignored, than Johnny does here. Can you imagine what Mark Lane could have done to Sims and Day on this? And my God, the print evidence!  LOL! 😂

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/a-presumption-of-innocence-lee-harvey-oswald-part-3

Edited October 19, 2021 by James DiEugenio

[Lawrence Schnapf]

A good contribution to the body of work how Oswald was unconvictable which why he had to be killed. This also demonstrates why 6 of 7 mock trials held by law schools and bar associations since 1967 with different sets of lawyers and mock juries have resulted in either hung jury or acquittals. I discussed these mock trials in a piece on Kennedy & Kings. 

[James DiEugenio]

Thanks Larry.  

The idea of chain of custody is something that will be in Oliver's film.

Day: Flip flop

Sims: flip flop

Day: GD does not mean George Doughty. It mean Vince Drain.

And was CE 543 dented after by the DPD as a way of getting back at the FBI for taking the evidence? 

Edited October 19, 2021 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

When you read this, you really have to wonder about the Dallas Police.

It really appears to me that if the JFK case is any kind of example, then they deliberately did not follow correct procedure for the  purpose of being able to make it up later.

And they then relied on having sympathetic judges and public defender type attorneys.

[Benjamin Cole]

19 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

As we know, Oswald never had a lawyer.  According to the DPD there was no stenographic record of his questioning.  

He never got a grand jury hearing, or a preliminary hearing.  But yet on the day after he was murdered in the middle of about 50 Dallas cops live on TV, he was named by the NY Times as JFK's assassin.  Not alleged assassin, but assassin.

The Warren Commission was made up of lawyers.  But yet every tenet of judicial process was eliminated from their proceedings.  No objections were allowed, and no documents were examined, since there was no counsel for Oswald. There was no judge to oversee things since LBJ had neutered Warren as had Dulles, when he objected violently to Warren Olney as Warren's choice for chief counsel. So the kind of circus sideshow Johnny Cairns is going to describe was allowed to run rampant. I don't think anyone has done a better job on the shells, which have been relatively ignored, than Johnny does here. Can you imagine what Mark Lane could have done to Sims and Day on this? And my God, the print evidence!  LOL! 😂

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/a-presumption-of-innocence-lee-harvey-oswald-part-3

Excellent article. 

I always like to say one reason to study JFKA in depth and in context is to learn how politics and media work in general. 

In the JFKA, we have LHO declared guilty within hours, and accepted by the media. An allegation or accusation becomes a conviction and confession. 

Remember this when assaying the modern scene. It is tempting to believe accusations and allegations that fit one's own narratives, or are PC at the time.  

The older I get, the more I revere the "innocent until proven guilty before a jury of peers" standard.  

The government can gin up a case against anybody, and any private citizen can file charges with the police or file a lawsuit.  

My take on the Dallas Police Department is that, Henry Wade-style, they started building a case against LHO immediately (the DPD template at the time), and were joined by the FBI and WC thereafter.  

 

 

 

 

[Joseph McBride]

Jim Leavelle, the lead detective in the Tippit case, 

indicated to me that Captain Fritz wanted him to work up

a case on Oswald for the Tippit murder since they didn't have

a sufficient case on Oswald for killing Kennedy. I asked Leavelle

why he thought they had a better case for the Tippit murder, and

he said they had witnesses (ignoring the chaotic state of the

witness reports). It's a little-known fact that Oswald was arraigned

only for the Tippit murder and not for the presidential assassination.

Henry Wade and J. Edgar Hoover also expressed doubts about

whether there was a sufficient case against Oswald in the assassination.

[Benjamin Cole]

38 minutes ago, Joseph McBride said:

Jim Leavelle, the lead detective in the Tippit case, 

indicated to me that Captain Fritz wanted him to work up

a case on Oswald for the Tippit murder since they didn't have

a sufficient case on Oswald for killing Kennedy. I asked Leavelle

why he thought they had a better case for the Tippit murder, and

he said they had witnesses (ignoring the chaotic state of the

witness reports). It's a little-known fact that Oswald was arraigned

only for the Tippit murder and not for the presidential assassination.

Henry Wade and J. Edgar Hoover also expressed doubts about

whether there was a sufficient case against Oswald in the assassination.

If Henry Wade didn't think there was enough for conviction....

Wade was famous for saying (to the effect) "It doesn't take skill to convict a guilty man. It takes skill to convict an innocent one." 

[David Lifton]

On 10/19/2021 at 9:47 AM, James DiEugenio said:

Thanks Larry.  

The idea of chain of custody is something that will be in Oliver's film.

Day: Flip flop

Sims: flip flop

Day: GD does not mean George Doughty. It mean Vince Drain.

And was CE 543 dented after by the DPD as a way of getting back at the FBI for taking the evidence? 

To Jim DiEugenio (and others on the London Forum):  The concept of "chain of possession" is something that I believe is (now) widely understood because -- for example -- of a TV program like "Law and Order."  So its now part of the culture (i.e., our culture) -- by which I mean "popular culture."  But back in the spring of 1967,  it was not.  And when I first encountered the subject, I did not even possess the basic vocabulary.  Fortunately (for me), UCLA Law Professor Liebeler's office offered a reasonable place to begin, so I went up there, to the second floor of the UCLA Law School, intending to see him.  Unfortunately, his door was closed; he was not in.  But just one or two doors down the same hallway was the office of Professor Leon Letwin (who passed in September 2015).  His door was partially open, and --as I recall --I knocked lightly, pushed the door open, and there was Professor Letwin, sitting at his desk.  I identified myself as a UCLA grad student, from the Engineering School, and told him I had a question about the law.  As I recall, he waved me into his office, and asked me what it was I wanted to know.  

To this day, I am impressed --in fact, truly amazed --that i had this kind of access to this level of legal talent, right there at UCLA.  Just walk in and ask -- our job is to educate.  That seemed to be the attitude, if not the policy.  

Anyway, I walked into Prof. Letwin's office, and described my own puzzlement at the problem I was having,  because --I now realized --I did not have the proper vocabulary.  So what happened next?  My narrative now picks up just as described in Chapter 16 of Best Evidence, which is titled "Chain of Possession: The Missing Link."  As I wrote, "Every item of evidence must have a "chain of possession," a demonstrable record of custody. From crime scene to court room.  That is why an officer scratches his initials on a bullet before he delivers it to the crime lab.. . .The chain of possession (offers) a legal safeguard against the mishandling of evidence, by accident or design."

And then I wrote:  "The same rules apply to the 400 pound coffin containing the body of a President as to a bullet.  The Warren Commission had committed a glaring error.  They had failed to establish the chain of possession on John Kennedy's body."

Chapter 16 of my book, Best Evidence, spells all this out, in detail.  B.E was published in January 1981; then, a paperback edition was published in 1982; then, in 1988 (on the 25th anniversary of JFK's murder), Best Evidence  was published again --in "trade paper" format (a perfect replica of the original hardcover edition, but with a new Foreword); and then (finally)  there was still one more edition: the 1993 "mass paperback" edition published by Signet.

Now changing the focus, just a bit, to Oliver Stone.

OLIVER STONE AND BEST EVIDENCE

Of course, I'm very proud to be able to cite all these different editions, and the multiple printings of each.  The question that I have now is this: will Oliver Stone, in his "Reclaiming History" film, be dealing with the concept of "chain of possession"?   Certainly I dealt with it--as enumerated above --in Best Evidence.  What is Oliver Stone going to do, when it comes to this subject area?   Stone doesn't want to appear to be a bully, or someone who is insensitive to another person's legal rights. 

Stone has been very careful in dealing with me, possibly because he remembers what happened some decades ago, when --in producing "JFK" (Dec 1991) --he tried to pretend I did not exist; forcing me to get a lawyer to insure that my rights (and I'm referring here to "literary rights") were protected.  Back then, meetings ensued; I met with Alex Ho (Stone's "number two"); and Stone made a reasonable settlement.   So what is going to happen this time around?

Now, Stone is revisiting the subject --which I think is a commendable thing --but several questions are sure to come up when (for example) he encounters the matter of issues first raised when he made "JFK," back in 1991, and which may (now) appear in his new film.

Here is the question:  Is Stone going to "give credit where credit is due?".  Or is he going to treat concepts developed in B.E. (and the detailed narrative that I wrote), as his natural right to utilize -- sort of like someone who approaches life from the standpoint that life is akin to a public buffet, where everything is "available" --free as the air we breath -- and so he (Oliver Stone) can treat himself to whatever he wants? 

Let me make something clear: if it wasn't for Oliver Stone, there would not be a "JFK Records Act".  I am well aware of that.  He has every reason to be proud of that.  Not only is he aware -- he is well aware of many of the details of the JFK case. (I recently watched him on TV, quoting from the Sibert and O'Neill FBI report, but carefully sticking to issues related to the Single Bullet Theory, and avoiding the passage (in that very same FBI report), which notes that when the President's body arrived at Bethesda Naval Hospital, it was noted that there had been --as in '"already had been" --"surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull."  Stone apparently doesn't want to deal with that because it inarguably shifts the focus to Best Evidence.  Again, let me be clear: Stone was very careful about which sentence of the S & O FBI report he quoted (and even which part of the key sentence, he quoted);  that was very obvious.  (Stone obviously knows the details). So much for the issue of "pre-autopsy surgery" of the wounds. Stone finds it easy to talk about the Single Bullet Theory; but carefully avoids the issue of "surgery of the head area" prior to autopsy".  The former leads to the issue of a "second assassin"; the latter, to the matter of whether the President's body, at the time of autopsy, was a medical forgery. It is easy to talk about the matter of a "second shooter"; quite another matter -- and far more politically explosive -- to talk about the falsification of President Kennedy's autopsy.

Turning now to the matter of custody --which in legal textbooks on evidence, comes under the category of "relevance"....:  As Jim DiEugenio has noted, "The idea of chain of custody is something that will be in Oliver's film."

All I can say is, "Yes, it certainly should!"

So now (and for me) the question becomes: when it comes to a number of key issues (and certain original discoveries and insights) that are thoroughly developed in B.E., how will Oliver Stone conduct himself?  Will he do what he did back in 1991, forcing me to seek legal assistance? Or will he behave as someone who has a more mature, and ethical understanding of his responsibilities, in 2021?

I'm more than a little proud of the record I created, in Best Evidence, and the role it may have played in educating the public when it came to certain legal issues. I would assume that Stone realizes that too. Years ago, he was a relative novice. Now, according to financial websites, he is worth between $30 million and $70 million.

I'm still around, the issue of "Chain of Possession" hasn't changed at all; and on a personal level, I'm interested in seeing how Oliver Stone will be dealing with these matters. 

DSL - 10/20/21 (3 AM PDT)

(David S. Lifton)

Edited November 15, 2021 by David Lifton
Clarifying details.

[David Josephs]

I have the deepest respect and appreciation for DL and Best Evidence…. That said there is something about “chain of custody” that continues to be overlooked.

https://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/summary-of-the-rules-of-evidence.html

This provable chain is but one of numerous ways to “Authenticate” evidence for admissibility. To make it “Real”.   There are ways to establish this chain which includes a statement from those involved establishing such a fact.  (Like with CE884 and the sealed plat.)  The fact is, identifying marks on evidence doesn’t overshadow when and where and how these marks are made…. (Again, like the initialing of the pistol at the station hours after “recovery” doesn’t tie that pistol to the scene of the crime)

I think these concepts make it doubly hard to understand the provenance of any of the offered evidence…

FWIW… DJ

 

IV. REAL EVIDENCE.

Real evidence is a thing the existence or characteristics of which are relevant and material. It is usually a thing that was directly involved in some event in the case. The written contract upon which an action is based is real evidence both to prove its terms and that it was executed by the defendant. If it is written in a faltering and unsteady hand, it may also be relevant to show that the writer was under duress at the time of its execution. The bloody bloomers, the murder weapon, a crumpled automobile, the scene of an accident--all may be real evidence.

To be admissible, real evidence, like all evidence, must be relevant, material, and competent. Establishing these basic prerequisites, and any other special ones that may apply, is called laying a foundation. The relevance and materiality of real evidence are usually obvious. Its competence is established by showing that it really is what it is supposed to be. Proving that real or other evidence is what it purports to be is called authentication. Evid. Code § 1400; Fed. Rules Evid. 901.

Real evidence may be authenticated in three ways--by identification of a unique object, by identification of an object that has been made unique, and by establishing a chain of custody. You only have to be able to use one of these ways, though it is prudent to prepare to use an alternate method in case the court is not satisfied with the one you have chosen.

• The easiest and usually the least troublesome way to authenticate real evidence is by the testimony of a witness who can identify a unique object in court. For example, the curator of a museum may be able to testify that he is familiar with, say, Picasso's "Dames de Avignon" and that what has been marked as exhibit so-and-so is in fact that unfortunate painting. It is important to remember, however, that many more mundane objects may be amenable to this kind of identification. A unique contract, or one that has been signed, may be authenticated by a person who is familiar with the document or its signatures. A ring may have an inscription by which it can be identified. Even a manufactured object, like a wallet, may be identifiable by its owner after years of use have given it a unique personality.
• The second method--identification in court of an object that has been made unique, is extremely useful since it sometimes allows a lawyer or client to avoid the pitfalls of proving a chain of custody by exercising some forethought. If a witness who can establish an object's relevance to the case marks it with his signature, initials, or another mark that will allow him to testify that he can tell it from all other objects of its kind, that witness will be allowed to identify the object in court and thus to authenticate it. Often, if a member of the lawyer's staff or another person early in the chain of custody marks the evidence, big problems can be avoided if a later link in the chain turns out to be missing.
• The third and least desirable way to authenticate real evidence is by establishing a chain of custody. Establishing a chain of custody requires that the whereabouts of the evidence at all times since the evidence was involved in the events at issue be established by competent testimony.

The proponent of the evidence must also establish that the object, in relevant respects, has not changed or been altered between the events and the trial. This can sometimes be a tall order, or can require the testimony of several witnesses. If there is any time from the events in question to the day of trial during which the location of the item cannot be accounted for, the chain is broken. In that case, the evidence will be excluded unless another method of authentication can be used

 

[Pete Mellor]

On 10/19/2021 at 5:22 AM, James DiEugenio said:

Can you imagine what Mark Lane could have done to Sims and Day on this? And my God, the print evidence!  LOL! 😂

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/a-presumption-of-innocence-lee-harvey-oswald-part-3

😀Jim, just imagine Mark Lane sitting in with the Commission!  He was the very last person they would allow, even two years before 'Rush to Judgment' was published.

Commission Exhibit 2033 comprises of three letters, the first from Lane to Earl Warren where he writes on 17th December '63, "May I respectfully request that your Commission give consideration to the appointment of defense council in order that in your inquiry an advocate zealously protecting his client's rights may be present; an advocate who may examine documents and cross examine witnesses."

A reply from Rankin on 30th December '63 states, "The views contained in your letter will be given appropriate consideration by the Commission prior to the preparation of any final report."

After Rankin's letter, Lane sent a telegram informing the Commission that he had been retained by Mrs. Marguerite C. Oswald to represent her deceased son.

The final communication from Rankin on 23rd January '64 "The Commission does not believe that it would be useful or desirable to permit an attorney representing Lee Harvey Oswald to have access to the investigative materials within the possession of the Commission or to participate in any hearings to be conducted by the Commission.  I can assure you that every effort will be made to ascertain the facts regarding Lee Harvey Oswald's implication in the assassination of President Kennedy as accurately and fairly as possible."

In other words 'keep off the grass'.

Strange that the Commission later reversed their decision by appointing Walter E. Craig, the president of the American Bar Association.

Edited October 20, 2021 by Pete Mellor
Add info

[James DiEugenio]

1.) Pete, because Craig did about nothing in Oswald's defense.  He was a joke. And both Lane and Meagher point this out.

2.) David J. that is a good passage you posted.

Because as Johnny points out, none of those techniques are viable here.  I mean the testimony of both Day and Sims is risible on this issue.  And they both changed their stories.

As far as the print evidence goes, I mean that would have been a circus to present. Because you had both Drain and Latona directly contradicting Day on the palm print, plus the physical evidence pointed out by Meagher. The trigger guard one is just as bad if not worse.  Pat Speer did a very nice job pointing out the tricks that PBS used on that. And the hoops that Scalice jumped through like a trained seal. Before he went over to Newsmax.

We go over this whole issue of chain of custody in the film with two professionals.

Edited October 20, 2021 by James DiEugenio

[Ron Bulman]

On 10/19/2021 at 1:11 PM, James DiEugenio said:

When you read this, you really have to wonder about the Dallas Police.

It really appears to me that if the JFK case is any kind of example, then they deliberately did not follow correct procedure for the  purpose of being able to make it up later.

And they then relied on having sympathetic judges and public defender type attorneys.

I've wondered about the DPD for a lot of years now.  Fritz's notes but the lack of a stenographer or tape recorder?  So many officers statements questionable.  Oswald's assassination.  Not just a DPD thing. 

Mayor Cabell a CIA asset, brother of the General fired by JFK. 

County Sheriff Decker compromised all the way back to the 30's by Benny Binion way before the Horseshoe in Vegas.  Then there was that Italian Dallas paper.  I forget the name, they changed it after the Appalachian raid where Civello was arrested.

Then there's Wade as DA, who the DPD collaborated with.  Lots of evidence on that aspect in the years afterwards. 

   

Edited October 21, 2021 by Ron Bulman

[Ken Davies]

Ron,

There was obviously more going on in Dallas then than "who shot J.R." 20 years later.

 

[James DiEugenio]

There are many highlights to Johnny's work.  But this is one of them that really stands out..

There had to have been a conference between Belin and Ball about this and Sims must have been made aware of their worries. Because two days after the April 6th Ball interview, Sims was recalled. This is what worried them: Belin knew that Day was going to testify that he turned over the unsealed envelope with shells to Sims. Therefore, they needed Sims on the record for this transfer. (WCH, Vol. IV, p. 256) Therefore, when he was returned to the stand, this time his questioner was Belin. And in almost no time flat, Belin is asking Sims about this specific point: the chain of custody of the shells. Sims now says that two days ago, he did not recall who brought the shells to the police station. But now, mirabile dictu, he says it was him! (WCH, Vol. VII, p. 183) So he has done a virtual 180 degree turn on this. After this pirouette, Belin asks Sims: Well, how did you remember that it was you who brought the cartridges to the station? Sims replies that, in the interval, he talked to Captain Will Fritz and his partner E. L. Boyd; they helped refresh his memory as to what happened.

Can anyone believe this kind of horse manure except Belin? Its stuff like this that indicates that not only was the DPD utterly corrupt, but that the WC not just went along with them, they helped facilitate the subterfuge. I mean Fritz cues in Sims as to what the story had to be. And Belin has no problem with it.

Sickening sideshow. It makes you understand what Leavelle told Joe McBride.

Edited October 22, 2021 by James DiEugenio

[Chuck Schwartz]

Ron, General Charles Cabell worked directly for Alan Dulles for 9 yrs. in the CIA  . Dulles designed the Big Event, in my opinion.  He communicated to Charles Cabell, who commuicated to the Mayor of Dallas at the time of the big event, Earle Cabell, brother of Charles.  And the Mayor communicated to the Dallas chief of Police.